This study was an evidence-based review of sexual assault
preventive intervention (SAPI) programs. A total of 67 publications
including articles, government reports, and book chapters (excluding
dissertations) representing 59 studies met the inclusion criteria and
were included in the data abstraction process. In order to be included
in the review, the resource had to be an English-language publication,
published between 1990 and June 2003, of a SAPI evaluation of a
primary or secondary preventive intervention program that targeted
peop... (more info)

This study was an evidence-based review of sexual assault
preventive intervention (SAPI) programs. A total of 67 publications
including articles, government reports, and book chapters (excluding
dissertations) representing 59 studies met the inclusion criteria and
were included in the data abstraction process. In order to be included
in the review, the resource had to be an English-language publication,
published between 1990 and June 2003, of a SAPI evaluation of a
primary or secondary preventive intervention program that targeted
people who were adolescent-age or older, and which included outcome
measures and a pre-test/post-test or between-group differences
design. The findings for the article reviews are presented in evidence
tables, for the general population in Part 1 and the evidence tables
for individuals with disabilities in Part 2.

Access Notes

The public-use data files in this collection are available for access by the general public.
Access does not require affiliation with an ICPSR member institution.

Universe:
All publications published in English between 1990 and
June 2003 that appeared in a peer-reviewed journal, as a chapter in a
book, or as a government report (not including dissertations) that
were evaluations of a primary or secondary sexual assault preventive
intervention (SAPI) programs targeting populations of adolescent age
or older and that included measures of attitudes, knowledge, behavior,
victimization, and perpetration, and measured intervention effects
using a pre-test/post-test or between-group differences design.

Data Types:
aggregate data

Data Collection Notes:

Users are encouraged to refer to the final report for
more information about the data tables.

Methodology

Study Purpose:
The purpose of the study was to conduct an
evidence-based review of sexual assault preventive intervention (SAPI)
programs. The review documented what is known about SAPI evaluation
research, identified significant gaps, and highlighted areas for
future research.

Study Design:
To identify the greatest number of sexual assault
prevention intervention (SAPI) evaluation publications within the
scope of the inclusion criteria, RTI conducted an exhaustive search of
the literature. A total of 67 resources (representing 59 studies,
including 9 focusing on individuals with disabilities) met the
inclusion criteria and were included in the data abstraction process.
In order to be included in the review, the article had to be an
English-language publication published between 1990 and June 2003 of a
SAPI evaluation that had appeared in a peer-reviewed journal, book
chapter, or government report (dissertations were excluded), and the
evaluated program had to be a primary or secondary preventive
intervention targeting adolescents or older that included outcome
measures and a pre-test/post-test or between-group differences
design. To find articles, the researchers performed keyword searches
in several relevant electronic databases to describe the sexual
offender, sexual offense, victim, intervention and prevention
programs, and evaluation and program effectiveness. Key search terms
specific to three groups (special populations/individuals with
disabilities, minorities, and adolescents) were used to ensure
inclusion of publications about these groups. A three-tiered review
process was employed to abstract data from the articles and ensure a
thorough assessment. Two reviewers from the RTI team separately
recorded detailed information for each article, and any discrepancies
were reconciled by a third reviewer. All three reviewers independently
assessed study quality. Two standardized forms, one for data
abstraction and one for quality rating, were used to review each
article. The data abstraction form, which was used to classify
information from each article, included sections for descriptive
information about the population and setting, study design and sample,
and the preventive intervention. The form also included sections for
recording study measures and instruments. The final section included
space to indicate the quality score (from the quality rating form) and
the major strengths and weaknesses of both the study and the article.
Each article was given three quality rating scores: one to assess the
study description, one to assess the study design, and a total score
(the sum of the study description and study design scores). The total
score was then divided by the number of possible points to determine
the percentage score.

Sample:
This study included the review of 67 articles
(representing 59 studies) on sexual assault preventive intervention
(SAPI) programs. Search terms were identified based on the inclusion
criteria for this review. Different search criteria were used to
search different databases to best utilize the controlled vocabulary
available from each of the databases. The search terms used in the
literature searches included keywords to describe the sexual offender,
sexual offense, and victim, interventions and prevention programs, and
evaluation and program effectiveness. Key search terms specific to
three groups (special populations/individuals with disabilities,
minorities, and adolescents) were used to ensure their inclusion.
Abstracts returned by the literature searches were screened by the
researchers to determine whether they met the inclusion criteria. If
they did, the full documents were retrieved. When an abstract did not
provide sufficient information to determine inclusion, the full
article was retrieved for further examination.

Description of Variables:
The data abstraction form, which was used to
classify information from each article, included sections for
descriptive information about the population and setting, study design
and sample, and the preventive intervention. The form also included
sections for recording study measures and instruments. The final
section included space to indicate the quality score (from the quality
rating form) and the major strengths and weaknesses of both the study
and the article. Tables in Appendices E and G include information on
the population and setting, study design and sample, intervention,
measures, results, and study quality. Population and setting variables
include location, study eligibility criteria, population type, and
population characteristics such as age, sex, education,
race/ethnicity, whether sexually active, victimization, and criminal
history. Study design and sample variables include intervention group
type, comparison group type, sampling frame size, baseline sample
size, post-test and follow-up sample sizes, time points of data
collection, and methods/setting of data collection. Intervention
variables include setting, duration, theory/model, delivery mode,
curriculum/content, program implementer, specific culture, assessment
of exposure, and intervention retention rate. Measures variables
include knowledge, time points of measurement, attitudes,
victimization, and perpetration. Results variables include primary
measures, knowledge, attitudes, victimization, penetration, and other
measures. Study quality variables include the quality score, major
strengths, and major weaknesses. Tables in Appendix F include
variables on the article number (corresponds to the article in
Appendix G), gender, intervention format and length, intervention
content, incentives, study design, baseline and post-intervention
follow up sample sizes, and outcome measures.

Download Statistics

Located within ICPSR, NACJD is sponsored by the
Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Institute of Justice, and the Office
of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

This website is funded through Inter-agency agreements through the Bureau of
Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention of
the Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Neither the U.S. Department of Justice nor any of its
components operate, control, are responsible for, or necessarily endorse, this website (including, without limitation,
its content, technical infrastructure, and policies, and any services or tools provided).